Search results

The coming use of autonomous vehicles has kindled an extensive debate over the choice of a desirable liability regime. This article contributes to that debate by explaining how rules for liability and damages ought to be constructed to deal first with stranger (including highway) cases and then with consensual cases (like medical malpractice). It concludes that an output regime based on events as they unfold is applicable in the former but not in the latter. It then argues that this legal regime carries over without a hitch to autonomous vehicles. It then further notes that in private disputes there are no fixed rules for deciding how to mix rules for injunctions and liabilities for threatened harms, and further notes that the regulatory regime for IoT will face those same difficulties, which are best solved by trying to minimize the sum of Type I and Type II errors, as in other cases.

Legal reasoning/analysis.

One salient point is that the rules of the road should change in response to technical innovation, but liability rules should not. The sound approach for dealing with damages for past incidents ought to be constructed to deal first with stranger (including highway) cases in which there is a dichotomous decision on compliance or not. That regime is based on events as they unfold, and carries over without a hitch to autonomous vehicles. For dealing with the prevention of future harms from violation of these rules, by contrast, there are no fixed rules for deciding how to mix damages with injunction, and the substitution of a system of direct state enforcement faces the same difficulties of implementation. In both settings, the rules of the road should be held constant, after which the ideal remedial mix follows the traditional approach of trying to minimize the sum of Type I and Type II errors, relating to over and underenforcement. The basic rules of tort liability stand in contrast to the different standards of liability that arise in consensual situations, and in all cases, they must necessarily be supplemented by rules of vicarious and product liability. Overall, the bottom line is this: autonomous vehicle innovations are relevant to designing regulations for future and uncertain harms, but irrelevant to liability for past harms.

This is an original legal analysis on the topic of Autonomous Vehicles.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

The scope of this undertaking is to categorize that sector of the environment affecting managerial decision making that makes up the “legal environment.” The term legal environment encompasses the federal and state legislative and regulatory powers, plus the common law or court‐developed law that impacts an organization's domain. I have set out to divide the project into three chapters with each chapter emphasizing a major regulatory impact on corporate direction; some predictable, some unpredictable. Moreover, predictability will be dealt with as to controlling the legal environment. Historically, the legal environment crosses over two of the sectors: the government sector, city, state, federal laws and regulations, the court system, and political processes; the sociocultural sector, affirmative action, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, values, beliefs, etc. Certain regulatory powers were anticipated by the frames of the Constitution in order to maintain a system of prosperity and strength. However, many of our regulatory agencies have come into being at the behest of the very industries that are regulated, such as antitrust. Furthermore, many of the regulatory laws came about due to the negligence of the business community in not self‐regulating and thereby permitting intolerable conditions for the sociocultural sector.

This chapter examines the influence of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy on some of the most important Supreme Court decisions of the past three decades. Mobilizing the epistemic community framework, it demonstrates how network members, acting as amici curiae, litigators, academics, and judges worked to transmit intellectual capital to Supreme Court decision makers in 12 federalism and separation of powers cases decided between 1983 and 2001. It finds that Federalist Society members were most successful in diffusing ideas into Supreme Court opinions in cases where doctrinal distance was greatest; that is, cases where the Supreme Court moved the farthest from its established constitutional framework.

Gambling has been a part of the human experience for a long time, perhaps as long as humans have interacted socially. Its literature has been accumulating since ancient times, with references found in some of the earliest records. Throughout history gambling has had a bad reputation because of the multitude of social problems attributed to it. The gambling industry today refers to the activity as “gaming,” which does not sound quite as notorious.

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

Crimes that take place in the context of procurements, such as corruption and subsidy fraud, are a major problem for both integrity and fiscal accountability of public administration. Therefore, combatting such crimes is of great importance. However, this course of action works only if the prosecutors have the instruments designed for what is precisely needed for their fight. One of the things needed is elements of crimes that can be handled easily; and to show this is the purpose of this study.

The author’s practical experience as a state prosecutor dealing with corruption cases and enriched with philosophical thinking about the principles of law indicates that one thing is especially important with regard to the elements of crimes: simplicity.

Corruption and financial crime cases are quite often very complex, involving many participants and considerable effort by the perpetrators to disguise their real actions as normal business procedures. As a result, finding evidence is a difficult task. If the elements of crimes are complex and if they demand detailed evidence, then proving procurement criminality will be even more difficult as it already is and will quite frequently end up in failure. Therefore, giving prosecutors a simple legal framework with elements of crimes, demanding only what realistically can be proven is a key factor for success.

Only with such a simple legal framework can the prosecutor’s fight against procurement criminality bring urgent, positive results.

The market’s reactions to six decisions that dealt with the employment‐at‐will doctrine were examined with event study methodology. Three hypotheses were tested, all three of which were supported clearly by the data. Shareholder returns to a sample of California firms fell in response to the three California decisions that provided at‐will employees with causes of action to challenge their discharges; returns to those same firms rose in response to the Foley decision, which cut back on the employment‐at‐will erosions in California; and, returns to a sample of firms in New York rose in response to the two decisions from New York that affirmed the supremacy of the employment‐at‐will doctrine in New York. These results support the view that employment‐at‐will is beneficial for employers and that erosions to that doctrine are costly to employers.

This chapter discusses current issues raised by the use of patents in university-industry technology commercialization. After introducing how patent laws operate in the global marketplace, this chapter provides an overview of the U.S. patent system, describing aspects of the process by which patents are obtained and enforced. The focus of the chapter then turns to some of the benefits and costs to academia of the impact of the Bayh-Dole Act, which allows universities to capture returns from federally funded research. The chapter identifies some of the challenges created by the expanding scope of subject matter eligible for patent protection and concludes with a discussion of some of the issues and opportunities associated with the strategic licensing and enforcement of patents that may impact invention and innovation in the academy and beyond.